Posted Feb 20, 2013 11:06 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A directed verdict of acquittal by a judge who misunderstood the requirements of Michigan’s arson law has saved a defendant from a retrial.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision on Wednesday that double jeopardy barred a retrial for arson defendant Lamar Evans. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion, while Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.
Evans was accused of burning down an unoccupied house. He was charged with arson of “other real property” rather than the arson of a “dwelling house.” A trial judge had issued a directed verdict of acquittal because prosecutors had failed to prove that the targeted home was not a “dwelling house,” a decision based on a mistaken interpretation of the law. Evans later conceded that arson of “other real property” is a lesser included offense under Michigan law, and there is no need to disprove the greater offense....
There is a difference when "other real property" is torched rather than a home where people live. When a home is burnt murder can result. That is a huge difference than wrongfully seeking monies from insurance companies. Money and life of a human being does not equate. While the Michigan judge may have misinterpreted the law, it doesn't mean the law is incorrect either.
When reading through Alito's Dissent it is obvious he is attempting to retry the case from the level of the prosecutor. That is not what the Supreme Court does. The Supreme Court in this case is suppose to determine if this is Double Jeopardy for the defendant. It doesn't matter that he admitted guilt when caught. Alito is not suppose to judge the defendant, he is suppose to judge the actions of the judiciary. This is profound malpractice at the level of the Supreme Court and it is very obvious.
On second thought, saying Alito is an activist judge is giving him too much credit.
There is a difference when "other real property" is torched rather than a home where people live. When a home is burnt murder can result. That is a huge difference than wrongfully seeking monies from insurance companies. Money and life of a human being does not equate. While the Michigan judge may have misinterpreted the law, it doesn't mean the law is incorrect either.
When reading through Alito's Dissent it is obvious he is attempting to retry the case from the level of the prosecutor. That is not what the Supreme Court does. The Supreme Court in this case is suppose to determine if this is Double Jeopardy for the defendant. It doesn't matter that he admitted guilt when caught. Alito is not suppose to judge the defendant, he is suppose to judge the actions of the judiciary. This is profound malpractice at the level of the Supreme Court and it is very obvious.
On second thought, saying Alito is an activist judge is giving him too much credit.
